balancing community criteria

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

 From the draft AGB, there are two areas of criteria that will predictably
restrict any applicant from achieving community-based when filing for a
generic or dictionary term as a gTLD string.  The first instance is nexus
where one point is automatically lost if the proposed string is not the name
or well known abbreviation of a community institution.

 

The second instance is under community endorsement where it states that one
point is lost if there is "some opposition by groups with apparent
relevance" - such as an objection, right?  I am not sure of too many
scenarios where a group feels they have "apparent relevance" to some other
entity's trade name.  But I can envision lots of examples where "groups with
apparent relevance" would surface to oppose when the proposed string is a
dictionary term.  Thus the likelihood of any dictionary term achieving
community-based is really slim with this combination.

 

I do not believe this is the intent of incorporating community-based
criteria.   To remedy, with the goal (of this comment) of not altering any
of the criteria for community-based, I would lower the required points to
achieve community-based from 11 to 10 to bring the intent more in line with
the purpose i.e. better balancing.  I appreciate the issue of "gaming" ICANN
has to consider in its role of administrator.  But 10 points (in the point
system as defined in the draft AGB) is difficult for an applicant to achieve
in comparison to what appears the ease for which "groups with apparent
relevance" have to file an objection which, combined with nexus, thwarts the
applicant.  This is the balance that I think needs another look.

 

Thank you!

 

Ray Fassett